No more state funds for Zuma in corruption trial

Former president Jacob Zuma will no longer receive state funding for his corruption trial defence.

And the North Gauteng High Court has ordered the state attorney to take all necessary steps‚ including the institution of civil proceedings, to recover all the taxpayers’ money already spent on these costs.

Deputy judge-president Aubrey Ledwaba handed down a 45-page ruling on Thursday on applications brought by the EFF‚ DA and other opposition parties to declare that the state was not liable for Zuma’s legal costs.

He ruled that Zuma “like all other accused persons in SA, is thus entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner using his own resources‚ or those offered by the Legal Aid Board”.

Zuma must also pay the opposition parties’ legal costs.

DA leader Mmusi Maimane said the party would now consider challenging the funding of Zuma’s legal fees at the Zondo inquiry into state capture.

He said the ruling was a precedent that could be used to block state funding for other officials accused of corruption.

Zuma’s attorney, Daniel Mantsha, suggested that Zuma’s legal team would seek to challenge the ruling.

The former president’s lawyers are expected to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal to challenge a costs order granted against Zuma in his fruitless challenges to then public protector Thuli Madonsela’s state of capture report.

The lawyers insisted he was entitled to state funding of his corruption trial defence – because he allegedly used his powerful position to commit the crimes he was accused of.

Zuma faces charges relating to his relationship with his former financial adviser, Schabir Shaik‚ who was convicted of keeping Zuma – then deputy president of the ANC and later deputy president of SA – on a corrupt retainer.

In exchange for multiple payments‚ Zuma allegedly used his power and position to further Shaik’s interests.

He also stands accused of accepting a R500‚000-a-year bribe‚ facilitated by Shaik‚ from Thint‚ the SA subsidiary of French arms company Thales, in exchange for his protection of the firm from a probe of the multibillion-rand arms deal.

The high court said the case involved Zuma in his personal capacity and that it “cannot be said to be in the government’s or in the public interest to have appointed private attorneys for Mr Zuma and for the state to fund his private legal costs in defending the 18 criminal charges‚ including racketeering‚ corruption‚ money laundering‚ fraud and tax evasion‚ and in the related civil proceedings”.

President Cyril Ramaphosa chose not to oppose the legal challenges to Zuma’s continued state funding.

His office said this funding could be forfeited if it could be shown‚ among other things‚ that Zuma did not act in the course and scope of his employment as a government official.